Not at all. Look instead in the mirror. Then again, you are just a common or garden anti GAA soccer head. Expectations must perforce swing low.
By the way, what part of the plain English below, the key part of that articleâs conclusion, could you not comprehend? What part of âthe study had to be terminated early for ethical reasons due to an unacceptable increase in postoperative infectionâ sailed over your head?
Do you want to withdraw your inane summation of that article? Thought not.
[D]o we dare to experiment with their omission to see if they have any tangible consequence on morbidity and mortality? A randomised control trial investigating the uncertainty surrounding prophylactic antibiotic use in clean coronary artery surgery turned out to be catastrophic â the study had to be terminated early for ethical reasons due to an unacceptable increase in postoperative infection in the placebo cohort. Perhaps an annual expenditure of a few million pounds in a healthcare budget of almost ÂŁ100 billion is a small price to pay for an intervention of unknown but potentially dramatic effectiveness.
The study mentioned found no scientific evidence for/against.
Youâre the one who brought the absurd notion that because surgeons wear masks in a sterile environment where someone with an open wound lies less than one metre away from them, then everyone should wear them in every day life to stop the spread of an airborne virus.
No, it is not what I said â at all. What I said was that absolutist comment about masks being completely useless (or completely effective, for that matter) is both nonsense in fact and in logic. Which is true.
The contention is actually a fairly banal one. Only someone addicted to contradicting me would think otherwise.
You got that article completely wrong. Just admit it and move on. We all get things wrong, time to time. If nothing else, this stuff is boring.
Keep going, if you must. You have given an exhibition in the art of summarizing an articleâs import akin to Corkâs exhibition of hurling in the 2021 Senior Final. Who am I to deny you the strange pleasure you clearly take in this class of inanityâŚ
During 115 weeks, a total of 3,088 patients were included in the study. Weeks were denoted as âmaskedâ or âunmaskedâ according to a random list. After 1,537 operations performed with face masks, 73 (4.7%) wound infections were recorded and, after 1,551 operations performed without face masks, 55 (3.5%) infections occurred. This difference was not statistically significant (p greater than 0.05) and the bacterial species cultured from the wound infections did not differ in any way, which would have supported the fact tha the numerical difference was a statistically âmissedâ difference. These results indicated that the use of face masks might be reconsidered. Masks may be used to protect the operating team from drops of infected blood and from airborne infections, but have not been proven to protect the patient operated by a healthy operating team
The results indicate no difference in surgical site infections between mask and maskless operations.
hereâs another one which says extended use of masks has no impact either on SSI rates
s. Results: No variation in the rate of infection between the two (masked and unmasked) groups. Conclusion: The effect of facemask in minimising SSI after clean surgery remains questionable due to the limited results. More comprehensive research is needed.
The scary thing is the fat headed prick @Malarkey genuinely thinks he is better than everyone else
thereâs as much peer reviewed studies as youâll get on the matter and they all come to the same conclusion, wearing a mask makes fuck all difference
The health service is working as hard as it can but just doesnt have the resources to cope. The public have no interest in helping but itâs not a one way street. There needs to be a lockdown until March but the public wonât have it. I see no alternative to a new covid variant to whip the public into shape. The Kraken is coming and the new CMO needs to work it hard. If she was smart sheâd already be holding press conferences about it and hopefully we could get a lockdown out of it.
What part of the endemic caveats in those articles sailed over your head? As per: From the limited results and apparent paucity of evidence.
If you had a titter of wit, you would realize those articles are about money â about post Covid costs. But you are a black and white world merchant.
With such limited evidence and the great cost that accrues from purchasing face masks for all surgical staff, we hope for larger, well designed randomized control trials to evaluate the true clinical efficacy of surgical masks in the operating room.
Anyhow, and as said before, anyone whose emotional life is so bound up with 11 multi millionaires running around green spaces in England already has a serious perspective problem.
The first article is from 1991 and has mumbers so obvious even you should understand them
There is no significant difference to be noted when wearing surgical masks in a sterile environment, which is closed and has strict guideliens and procedures your logical assumption is that masks make a significant difference in a non sterile, open environment with little or no guidelines on how people wear them or replace them.
You are so very wrong, embarrassingly so.
And on perspective, youâve your whole life and career wrapped up in 15 culchies lashing a ball with a stick around a green area. Emotionally and otherwise invested in a rural hobby.
And you never played it. And you charge people for your opinion on it. You were on about grifting earlier
